Forum

Hi Gollum!
If you want to take stock seriously, you´d better save a few more bucks and get yourself an SLR camera. While some will not agree, most others will: these are still far away qualitywise from any point and shoot camera. The main reason besides the lenses is the size of the sensor.

A rather extreme example, but it gives you a better idea.

Comparing the Canon A650 (sensorsize 1/1,7") with the Canon 5D (1,7"). Both have 12mpix, but the 5D has a 4,5x larger sensor. So every single of the image sensors (pixels) is 4,5x larger. Larger pixels can not only capture more light and have therefore lower ISO noise, but also produce a much better image quality.

Take cameras like the Nikon D40, Pentax K100D, and you still end up with a much better pixel to size ratio.

To sum it up: pixelcount isn´t everything. If you really want to make money with stock, you have to compete against those with better equipment, and so you have to go for the best you can afford.

Sure not the camera, but the photographer takes the picture. Composition, etc. is actually even more important than image quality to say if an image is good or not. But we inspectors also have to take the customer into consideration. He has to be satisfied with the technical quality of an image. If he likes a thumbnail and buys the large version, he must not be disappointed with the final result.

Hope this helps a bit.

Yeah thanks a lot for the info, I'm now looking for the best cameras under 500 lol. However, somehow I have managed to find this one slr for under 300. Sony Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H7/B - digital camera (DSCH7/B) which can be found here http://www.bizrate.com/digitalcameras/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-h7--pid557668466/reviews.html

if you are bored or have a minute I'd really really appreciate your input on that one. looks pretty good to me from what i read but im a newbie what do i know:P

Hey Gollum,
here I am bored again ;).

Just did a short research, the DSC-H7 has a sensor size of 1/2,5" which is even smaller than the ones we mentioned before.
I don´t know exactly about the DSC-H7, but I´ve seen some DSC-H5 images while inspecting and to be honest they were nowhere near a DSLR.


See for yourself: the left camera on this comparison is the DSC-H7: DSC-H7 vs Canon S5

These are two older canon DSLRs: Canon DSLR comparison


The difference on these comparisons in my opinion is less obvious (but way big enough) than on the pictures we get here.

Of course you always have to consider what lens you use on a DSLR. There are lenses that produce mediocre images and some that give your crisp sharp ones.
I know this is all quite irritating - but I´m afraid that is just the way it is. When choosing a camera you need to keep the usage in mind rather than the price. If you are confident enough to earn some money with stock, you need a good camera (and lens), otherwise many of your shots will be rejected due to artifacts, etc. because these problems are present with point and shoot cameras - actually on every single shot. So a lot of your "time investment" will be in vain - and hey, time is money!

ok mr. bored let me ask you something. if the exact same picture were taken with the sony h7 as with one of the other more expensive cameras you listed, would you be likely to reject it because of the lower quality? or would it be too negligible?
if that question even makes sense.
anyway thanks for your help again mr. bored :D










Signed: Kid who doesn't wana pay 2,000 for a camera yet :S

Hey Kid who doesn´t wanna pay 2.000 for a camera yet ;-)
that question does indeed make sense. Only you don´t need to pay 2.000 US$ to get a good camera. Years ago I had a 300D (aka Canon Rebel), that produced some pretty good images - and they easily get accepted still.

Unfortunately there is a good chance that an image shot with a p&s camera gets rejected due to artifacts (or at least resized) while the same image will be accepted easily when shot with a DSLR. But anyway - even a DSLR isn´t foolproof - you should still use RAW at best with 100 ISO with most cameras.

There are also other advantages in using DSLR cameras - such as selective focus - p&s cameras are not really capable to blur the background to better accentuate the foreground (e.g. portrait), no shutter lag for capturing fast movement, etc.

Look at it that way: there are more and more photographers getting into microstock business, and they produce better and better average quality. It is quite likely that in the near future, images that would get accepted now won´t get accepted then. So the investment in your camera is not just for now.

Nevertheless - the photographer is still the one that makes an image composition wise - and any bad composition won´t sell anyway (no matter if it gets accepted or not and no matter if it was shot with a hasselblad or a noname p&s).

:)

I just bought an Olympus E-510 10 megapixel DSLR with a 14-42mm ED kit lens for $630.00 (an upgrade from my 8MP E-500). Such a camera setup would be great for stock photography. I've searched around for a point and shoot backup camera for stock photography and still have yet to find one decent enough that will meet the quality demands of stock photography.
My wife has a Fujifilm S9100 9MP DSLR-like camera, but that won't even give me good enough quality; even when shooting in RAW. True DSLR really is the only way to go.

Okay, you've convinced me. Im not longer looking at Sony h9 but am looking at two particular SLR models. The Canon Digital Rebel XT and Nikon D50.
Now my question is, what accessories do I NEED with these? Which accessories are nice to have? and which excessories can you get but dont really need to for all practical intents and purposes? thank you thank you :D

Great ;)
First of all you need a lens. You can start out with a bad one and buy a better one later :D. That is still way better than the h9 - but you can also get a good one, pay more and getter pictures. So needed is just a lens, but better is a good lens (may not be helpful, but that´s the way it is). And think about your initial motives to decide what lens you will need (focal length wise).

Depending on how much creativity you have in setting up various light sources AND depending on what you are going to shoot - you need no more than that to start with (perhaps the one or the other foldable reflector, because you are manly going to shoot outdoors if you don´t have a flash).

In time you will sure invest in several (and now I would say only good) lenses, flash units, backgrounds,....

I guess I have to stop giving advices now because I am edjucating new competitors here :D

yes thats right now you'll have to send me PMs with your good advice :D

Hehehehe :laugh:

I was about to jump in here and make some suggestions re cheap SLRs. I see from the fact that you have exactly six times more downloads than me that it wouldn't be my place to do so, lol.

I like the lines on the road pic, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised at the presence of some of the photos there in your portfolio. Not to be bitter, or not entirely anyway, as I respect people who want to take photographs, are interested in photography and want to show their stuff and chance their arm with their work, but I can't get my head around the approval policy sometimes. Just when I think I 'get' it something throws this into disarray.

Am I missing something here?

Perhaps a humble, gracious attitude?